Cisco Wireless Reviews

The primary use case for our customers is having a product that provides a solution to complex problems. We have more than 100 customers using Cisco Wireless. 

Being able to solve the complex issues of our customers with a stable solution is very valuable. The fact that it is also very flexible adds to the value. 

One of the issues with Cisco, particularly for smaller companies, is the cost. A small company can't afford to pay the price of a Cisco product. The price is a very important factor for our customers. 

I've been using this solution for about two years. 

The solution is stable. 

This solution is scalable. 

We receive great technical support from Cisco. 

The initial setup was relatively straightforward, although it took a little longer than expected. We have one person who deals with the maintenance and any issues that arise. 

I believe licensing is paid on a monthly basis. 

This is a great product and despite the high cost, I rate it a 10 out of 10 for performance. 

These devices are being used for a large number of sites. We have around 3,000 APs.

For WLC, we are using 5508 and 7500 devices. We will be using 9800 devices soon.

Its stability is most valuable.

It is not easy to use. It should be made easier to use. They can maybe migrate it to the cloud so that we can manage the WLCs together.

I find the licensing part very hard to understand. Cisco is now moving towards smart licensing, so this issue will be addressed soon.

I have been using this solution for eight years.

It is very stable.

It is very scalable.

Their technical support is fine.

It is easy to install. The deployment duration depends on different scenarios. It depends on the site, the number of users, and the technicality of the site, but overall, it doesn't take very long.

I am a consultant. 

Its licensing is hard to understand.

I would absolutely recommend this solution. I would rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.

We don't have to use cables anymore and it gives us a variety of connections. We can do video conferencing and web conferencing, so it has been great. 

The most valuable feature of this solution is its security. Cisco is very well known for security.

In terms of performance, it's really good. I have never seen it go down, at least in the office environment. Deploying it in the factory may be our next use case. A lot of noise occurs in the factory, so it could be difficult to deploy a wireless solution there. That could be a challenge.

The factory environment requires more high-density capability and there are other challenges affecting the factory environment. It's a harsh environment, but I see that Cisco's user-case allows deployment in a factory environment.

The pricing is high. It could be cheaper. Cisco is known for its high pricing.

Security and support are important factors when looking at this kind of solution. Cisco is more expensive but you have to compare the security and support you are getting. The support, in particular, is very critical, especially if you are in a conference call and the sound breaks off. You need them to get back to you quickly.

Cisco is a large company, the number-one company, and those are important factors when selecting a vendor. The other factor is the pricing, in addition to support and security.

I rate Cisco Wireless at 10 out of 10 because I have never had a problem. I am a happy customer.

We use it for WiFi for Internet, Intranet access, and VOIP in a high density area campus environment.

Wireless Voice over IP (VOIP) on a diversity of VOIP phones along with Cisco Jabber, Cisco phones, and Ascom.

Device profiling allows us to have different policies applied by ISE to wireless clients.

Many wireless controllers' firmware have bugs in their new releases, which are not stable, especially in an environment with many wireless AP (WAP) types.

The easy way to integrate it with the existing network. Also, at the implementation, the simple management of the access points in a centrally console.

Before the implementation in 2006, we had 20 stand-alone access points where the administration tasks were complicated; any change has to be made in each AP.

Since August 2006.

Not really.

Until now they are very stable, but in some cases in which we had a problem there was a fix to solve the problem.

No issues encountered.

Good, 9 out of 10

Good, 9 out of 10

No, this product is the only one I have used.

As in the majority of new implementations there is a lack of knowledge of the products, but with some time and a lot readings at the end was easily.

It was a mixed schema; the case study and the initial implementation was made by a vendor, then, the tune up was made by us.

No, it was the only one because all the network infrastructure is Cisco: Total compatibility.

Have clear ideas about the requirements or goals for the company before implementation and have a good case study.

Our client is a manufacturer that uses Cisco Wireless to provide WiFi coverage for the entire factory. 

We implemented Cisco Wireless two years ago.

Cisco Wireless is stable.

Cisco Wireless is scalable.

Setting up Cisco Wireless isn't easy, but it's not that difficult, either.

The price of Cisco Wireless could be lower.

I rate Cisco Wireless eight out of 10. However, I wouldn't typically recommend Cisco Wireless. In this case, the clients had to implement Cisco to meet a corporate standard. If someone asked me to suggest a good WiFi solution, I would say Ruckus.

Cisco Wireless can be used for a wireless solution anywhere you require. 

Cisco wireless plus, Cisco routers, or Cisco switches,  when combining them together they work very well. Some of the controller features are available now in the Cisco switches and routers. Most companies have Cisco as their backbone infrastructure and if you have Cisco solutions already in place, you should continue with Cisco.

Overall good featured product.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for more than one year.

Cisco Wireless is highly stable.

The scalability of Cisco Wireless is good.

We have approximately 300 users using the solution.

The installation is very tiring and painful, the process could be easier.

We have completed the installation of eight access point routers in three days, and this was because of some issues with the infrastructure. We had a customer that had 10 access points and the controller was there. It was simple, it was only a one-day process to put it in, connect with the controller, and it is configured.

Other solutions, such as Oracle and Aruba, tend to be less complicated.

We have two people that are required at a minimum to do the implementation and maintenance of the solution.

There are annual subscriptions to use this solution. I have not been able to understand the licensing of Cisco. Some of the Cisco executives were not able to understand them either. When you first start out the price is zero but when it comes to a time of renewal you have to pay. 

I cannot say the solution should be cheaper because it has a good price point. It is not that they are very expensive, but compared to other solutions available in the market they are expensive. However, they are premium products that make the price suitable for what benefits you receive.

I have evaluated Oracle and Aruba solutions.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.

It's very useful in terms of mobility. Before this solution you would have to find a product to connect to and to have a security ICU. Now it's much easier with personal customization.

Ease of use is the most valuable feature. 

The configuration interface could be easier. They should make roaming easier and should fix it so that when you cross a building you can keep the signal.

It has very good scalability. 

I would rate their technical support a seven out of ten because the solution's support can always use improvement. 

We previously used Aruba. Their technique is the same but it's easier with Cisco.

You need to learn the technology but after that the setup is easy.

I would rate it a seven out of ten. It's good but it's not a ten because there are some specific technicalities they can improve on. I would recommend using this technology.